Identity
Filter
Visitors
(1) (1) (1) (0) (0) (1) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (61) (0) (0) (0)Subscribers
(0)
Highest posts
Latest posts
Links
Highest posts
Latest posts
At 06:22 PM 11/3/2006, Mark wrote:
Lomax wrote:[…]Oh, I am what profession I wannabe?L: Mark expects the world to beat a path to his door. He bought thatmousetrap myth. Build a better mousetrap and starve, unless you learnhow to market it or engage someone to market it for you.Mark, we are lemmings! Get it?-M: We are systems designers.
I expect there to be few lemmings among us.
We are all lemmings, Mark. That you think you are not — and you do think you are not — shows that you have bought your own exalted image of yourself.
And all of us can break out of leeminghood for times. We can’t do it more than occasionally without the people in white coats taking us away. Been there, done that, by the way.
-M: My way, everyone is represented, always.
Whether they want to be, or not. You will be represented.
This, by the way, is the status quo. Representatives in the U.S. House are apportioned according to population, not according to votes. The population includes many non-voters, including non-citizens, children, etc.
Garbage in, garbage out. If the voter is assigned a proxy, then something provided by the system that assigns the proxy is adding weight to that proxy without any input from the voter.If a member is not represented, so?-M: Then they aren’t providing useful proxy information.The voter is the data input for the c-algorithm.
This is not obvious to Mark because he does not respect the voter in the first place. He’d rather design a system that, instead of amplifying the signal in the voter noise, would substitute another signal provided by the system
We want the choice of a proxy to be by conscious, voluntary choice of the voter. The voter is one of the muscles of society. We want him to function by his choice. Not because the system or some system designer says he must.
We want to end the involuntary alienation of the citizen from government, and the first step is to end that alienation between the citizen from voluntary organizations outside government.
If these organizations are to maximally inclusive, they must not take controversial positions. If they do take such positions, they are merely another competitor in the political marketplace. We want something more than that. We want full participation, and to get it, the organization itself must be universal. This, among other things, means that it must not be a power structure, it must be about communication, voluntary communication.
Adding inputs that don’t come from the citizens just adds, at best, noise, and at worst, it adds bias.
-M: “Automate member participation” vs. “participation to be a freechoice”.Did it occur to you that the automation of member participation wouldbe free choice participation?
No. Because it would not. Automation, perhaps, of the potential for voter participation, perhaps. In other words, the system could make it easy. But if it is too easy, one might wonder if it is inviting unconsidered input. It should be easy. But the system should not make it very easy, as, for example, by presenting the voter with a couple of choices for proxy automatically. It is possible that there are ways such a process could be done without introducing bias.
But doing it by PageRank, if I understand this correctly, will merely amplify the existing bias in the organization, instead of adding the signal from the voter to that bias. There will always be bias, but we want it to be the general bias of the society. Mark might call this “lemmingism,” but that is only a problem when “lemmingism” prevents the consideration of new ideas.
So if the voter gave the free choice not to select proxies, that thecomputer would automaticly select underdogs as proxies.
Those are not proxies. Those are appointed voters. They have been given added power without the excuse that this power was voluntarily and knowingly assigned by the voter. If the system selects “underdogs,” then it is introducing counter-bias of a kind, a signal different from that which, on average, would be presented by the voter. It is, again, noise.
There is no “underdog” problem with FA/DP. Underdogs simply organize themselves and can be as large a force as they can muster. They will be heard. But the system will not balance out underdoggedness such that it becomes equal to topdoggedness. It leaves people as they are, but provides them with means of expression and an assurance that they will be heard.
The automatic assignment of proxies does not set up the relationships of trust that we consider essential to the long-term effects of FA/DP.
If Mark wants to offer automatic assignment tools to organizations, fine. But I think most of us won’t want that crap. He is designing in bells and whistles that his potential customers — at least this one!, and I might have some influence — consider more of a problem than a solution.
He is one of that class of abstract designers of castles in the sky, utopian fantasies. And he refuses to connect with the real world. Which is … lemmings. According to him.
He hates this. Why?
Because they won’t listen to him. If they were lemmings following him, would he mind so much?
Perhaps. And perhaps not.
Low-order DP is populistic.High order DP (four or more proxy chains deep) allows for betterfiltration and peer selection.
This is an illusory distinction. The only thing that would make Delegable Proxy “low order” as he defines it is a small size of the organization. Large-scale DP will be automatically high order. That is, the average chain length from individual member to top proxy will be more than four. We can easily calculate this.
The Demoex experiment did not understand the implications of delegable proxy, and, while the goal was to create something like universal participation, it did not understand that majority rule within a party excludes universal participation. They did not understand the FA vision, they only had DP. Note that some participants in Demoex have since become informed about this, including some of the founders, I think. We’ll see what the future brings.
We think that in a general purpose political FA, the average direct proxy count will be twenty. If a proxy takes on too many direct proxies, the traffic becomes a burden. Too few is not a problem, really except that it increases the chain length to the center.
If the average proxy count is twenty, the size of the organization is 20 ^ N, where N is the average chain length. (That’s not accurate, I think, because “average” is a linear but we are dealing with an exponential function.) The math to work out the actual distribution is more complex than I care to work out at this time.
If, somehow, we had an actual direct proxy count of twenty, then with N = 4, we’d have 160,000 members. Now, what in the world does this have to do with “better filtration and peer selection?”
It simply scales the organization. The hierarchy created spontaneously is a fractal that is self-similar regardless of scale. The rapid information transfer across the network gets noisy, a bit, as the chain length increases, but these are intelligent filters and links. They can and will reach from the top to the bottom to validate communications, this is not the telephone game, except for rapid communication. That is, there will be accuracy distortion in rapid transmission, where messages are passed on without detailed consideration, but perhaps in the sense that there is an emergency. But this will not be how it ordinarily functions. Rather, proxy filtering opens up a channel from the bottom to the top. There is no distortion, ultimately.
There must be relationships and expectations of trust for this to work. It is not something that can well be automated. Recording proxies, analyzing proxies, notifying members that loops or dead ends prevented them from being represented in a poll, that can be automated.
But my point is that it does not need to be. It can all be done manually, with little difficulty. Demoex made a big mistake, which was in thinking of DP as a computer thing. It’s not. It could have been done hundreds of years ago. Or more. But the communication involved on a large scale gets faster and a bit easier.
Marketed by whom? By you?L: You can open the doors, but unless people come in, you don’t have aparty. You’ve got some open doors.-M: It could be marketed as being competitive.
People’s general ranks could be posted.We have very small systems in place. Because they are Free Associations, with specific rules as determined by the members, the specification is so simple that Mark doesn’t even recognize it as such.L: Where is one? Show me!-M: I think that I have provided more specifics for SD2-S than you havefor specific DP systems.
(1) Define an organizational purpose. (2) Set up a proxy list. This is just a list, it is not an automated system. (3) Invite members to join and participate. (4) According to standard process (I recommend Robert’s Rules as adapted for on-line meetings), conduct polls. A poll result, again, creates another list. Voter ID, vote.
that’s it. The rest is what the members do voluntarily. If they need more advanced tools, they will find, build, or buy them. If Mark has tools ready, I’m sure they would be considered. But, I can tell you, if they research his writings and find all this “lemming” nonsense, they will turn away, perhaps needlessly.
Mark has understood a great deal, certainly about DP. He understands some dimensions of the problem, and this understanding is unusual. But he is also a lemming himself, and his lemmingness keeps him from seeing beyond certain limitations. He can’t see how an organization that is, in itself, powerless, could radically alter the balance of power.
He does not see the power of advice and information. Neither of these has power in itself.
He also does not see the danger of centralization. His opinions about this, about power in general, are actually the “common wisdom.” His dislike for direct democracy is a very old idea, including his belief that most people are merely sheep. Or lemmings, his preferred term.
People are lemmings, yes. It’s a protection and a strength. But it does introduce certain problems, and we believe that the kind of communication that FA/DP should foster will solve those problems.
No. It is not established at all. It is a design. A design is not “established” until it is in use. One design may be more practical, though less completely specified, than another which has been even completely specified.Mark behaves as if what isbeing compared is a clearly established system, and what others areproposing are mere theories.-M: Yes, my system is established more clearly than others.
A completely specified error is, what? Superior to a design approach that is, necessarily, open and therefore not completely specified?
Whatever time I’m spending here is essentially stolen time. I’m already spending too much. Do not expect it to continue.L: Dysfunctional, again. I do not recall the specifics Mark istalking about.-M: Then use the search option. I found the input field by searching"input field".
-M: You are assuming that I can’t develop an incorruptable filter.You are being disrespectful and presumptuous.
Yes. I am assuming that, because I consider it an extremely difficult problem. I don’t think Mark has solved it, at all. But if he is correct, surely his system will gain notice from the millions of people who are searching for one. Or are there millions?
Probably not. There may be three or four. I’ve been one of them. I abandoned the search, because I don’t think it is possible.
FA/DP is not corruptible, or, more accurately, it would be so expensive to corrupt that we would just call it “compensation” instead of bribery. You pretty much have to corrupt a majority, and it is quite difficult to do that without letting the cat out of the bag, so, in practice, you have to offer compensation to everyone.
FA/DP is not a power structure, so corruption in it would amount to proxies offering bad advice. It would amount to low-level proxies offering bad advice. This is because top-level proxies, where information management power is concentrated, cannot easily bypass their clients to reach the end of the chains, the members. They may be able to reach down a few levels, depends on system design, but they will not be able to reach into the direct relationships of trust at a low level. Where there is no compensation and, in a political system, we are probably talking about neighbors and personal friends. How much would you have to pay me to lie to my friends?
And, indeed, if you paid me, how would you know that I had actually gone ahead and lied? My communication with them is private and privileged, if I want it to be. Proxies and clients can and will communicate independently of the central network, which exists only a sort of clearing-house.
Mark is assuming that he can develop a centralized but incorruptible system. It has not been done, it has never been proven. My assumption, that he cannot, is highly likely to be correct. It is not impossible that he could succeed, but I would not bet the time of day on it.
The value of this conversation to me is that it exposes certain ideas about FA/DP that might not otherwise be made explicit. This is what I’m doing most of the time, at this stage of our process.
Yes. Now, show me a deductive proof that SD2-S is uncorruptible. In the absence of that, induction is all we have. From what evidence is Mark inducing that it is incorruptible? His own ideas about it? Or does he have a rigorous proof?-M: OK – inference, which is uncertain.L: You are assuming that SD2-S is corruptable simply because it iscentralized. Yet you don’t understand it, do you?L: No. I’m basing this in an inference. It could be wrong. Show me.
If he does, from what he has written before, I’d guess that it is written in such technical language that I am not going to review it myself. Rather, when the time is right, I’ll sic some mathematicians or other specialists on it.
Otherwise, what is more likely, is that he has, in his mind, ideas about how to prevent corruption, and we will consider those ideas if they seem reasonable.
>L: I do have some ideas about what SD2-S is, but I have not seen sufficientI did. First thing I see is “manditory representatives.” Mispelled, by the way, Mark should learn to use spellcheck. What do I do if I am undertain about joining this organization and I see that?definition to claim to understand it.-M: Look at the above input field.
I go somewhere else. I don’t like being subject to mandates, period.
The general trustees stay the same, but the specialists change for eachissue.
This is utterly impractical. The “lemmings” cannot manage complex issues outside their individual areas of focus, they simply do not have time. Even to name specialists.
We do have a mechanism for “issue proxies,” which is that independent FA/DP organizations will exist, each one devoted to an issue. There may be one or more metaorganizations to which everyone would belong, and general proxies from these organizations would manage membership, effectively, in suborganizations where the member does not wish to directly participate.
We wish to keep the proxy system extremely simple, and this requires single proxy, with default proxies, those active in the absence of the single proxy, coming from proxy assignments of the absent proxy, thus concentrated. Encouraging the designation of alternate proxies destroys this simplicity.
*But members can do it. Its a Free Assocation, you can do whatever you like. But getting the organization to do the very much more complex analysis involved, that would be another thing. I don’t think it will happen.
The most we see is what was suggested for Metaparty. (metaparty.beyondpolitics.org) There are Forums there for the consideration of various issues. Any participant in a forum can set up a special proxy list. This list will override the standard proxy for that forum, assuming that analysts want to use it. But this is really a matter of an individual “meeting” setting up its own rules. It has no effect on other meetings.
Issues will be constantly changing. We don’t want to encourage issue proxies because it dilutes the decision to trust the single proxy. We want that decision to be made carefully. We want it to be general trust, not very narrow.
However, FA meetings can and will consult specialists, and there will be whole organizations of specialists, perhaps with membership requirements such as credentials. These latter organizations can be FAs within their membership definition. (Generally FAs allow self-definition of membership qualification, and these organizations might be the same but might require statement of credentials, if any, and might provide for investigation of the statements. You can join and claim you are a qualified physician, for example, but analysts interested in consensus among physicians are going to discount your claim if you have not provided verifiable evidence. You don’t have to provide that evidence, you can do what you like. But we don’t have to give any particular credence to your votes.
Once again, that this is not a power structure allows “decisions” to be made without needed to formally validate membership qualifications. A minority caucus is totally free to go ahead and act without the permission of the majority. Neither one may act as if they represent the FA. They act on their own.
Again, some central tools may be provided, perhaps a means to expand votes using various databases as input. That is, one might determine such things as direct vote results, generally expanded vote results, validated member results (from open or private lists of validated members), etc.
We are unconcerned about member fraud, sock puppets, more than considering it a minor nuisance. It would make things a little more complicated, that’s all. But, over time, the sock puppets will stand exposed. They can’t show up at a face-to-face meeting, for example, they can’t contribute funds that were not available to the real person behind them, they can’t muster votes in real elections. If the central organization decides to validate memberships in some way (it can do this by majority vote; and a caucus suspecting vote fraud may also be able to influence a trustee to allow it even if the majority opposes, trustees are independent. Admin consists of trustees), it can do it, it can send direct emails to members. It won’t do this more than very rarely. Harassing members is a good way to destroy an FA…. or to split it, which is much less harmful.
If a minority suspects fraud is creating a false majority, it can simply form its own FA. The false majority ends up holding a handful of sand. And if it was not false, it was real, so what? The minority, in leaving, will leave behind proxies collectively representing them. There is still an overarching FA, the original one.
Meetings multiply and remain connected.
Unspecified? Sure. In detail. But the vision is quite clear, and I know this because others have been “infected” by it. They can write about this topic and I look at it and say, “That’s what I would have said.” They are describing the same vision.
Mark has got a few aspects of this vision, and in particular, much of the reasoning behind DP. But he does not know how to get from here to there, yet he is trying to design a system that will be used when we are “there.” I.e., when power structures are being operated with DP methods.
What I’m saying is that this is way premature. FA/DP will gather the intelligence to design — or accept — advanced social decision-making systems, and will coordinate the power necessary to implement them. In doing this, it must be free of bias as to the outcome. Bias is the enemy of intelligence. Bias an intelligent process and you bias the result away from optimum.
Now imagine the proxy chains to have unlimited depth.
We imagine proxy chains to have unlimited depth, it goes without saying in delegable proxy. If proxies are delegable, there is no limit to the delegation, until it loops back. Theoretically, if everyone names a proxy, there is a limit to the chain depth, it is the human population. But, of course, information would move very, very slowly across that “network.”
This gives a trust network for each issue, as well as a trustnetwork of generalists.-~—~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups “top-politics” group. To post to this group, send email to top-politics@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to top-politics-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/top-politics?hl=en-M: We Shaivites do believe in a Self.By parallel, an organization evidences its centrality by making adecision,no matter how ‘decentralized’ it claims to be.[…]L: No, FA/DP does create a centralized structure, but it does it as afractal. Smoke that, Mark. If a human brain - which is fractallyorganizedL: The safeguard against this: the decentralization of power…
M: Then it no longer has the benefits of centalization.Lets cure or headaches by cutting off our heads.- is “centralized,” then FA/DP could be said to becentralized. But there is no “center.” There is a gestalt thatappears, we call it “identity.” Technically, any Buddhist would knowthat it does not exist, it is an illusion. But decisions get madeanyway, as if there were a central identity.-M: What don’t you understand? Markov chains?Counting? Random forking? Reiteration?If you aren’t specific about what you don’t understand,its hard for me to help you.Here is a primer for SNA:http://www.orgnet.com/sna.htmlThis won’t tell you about directional Markov algorithms,but it will show you more common c-algorithms.This will give you a context for understanding the SNA use of Markovalgorithms.L: Wow. I must really be an idiot! Presumably they are so easy tounderstand that cogent explanation isn’t necessary. Except for idiotsand lemmings.L: Mark, you can be so obtuse. I’d rather be annoying.-M: Markov chain c-algorithms are easy to understand.central treasury. However, caucuses can set up organizations which function in any way they choose. One-M: With SD2-S, there would probably be a treasury committee composedof high ranking adminstrators, and whose policy has been determined bytreasury related specialists.L: Lots of ways to do it. In FA/DP there is effectively noof the interesting concepts would be what’s been called the House ofMoney. It is called the House because it is like the House ofRepresentatives, except what is represented is member funding.Members put funds into an account, and they can “vote” with thesefunds. And they can delegate their “vote.” Which would mean thathigh-level proxies could quickly marshal and dedicate verysignificant funds.-M: I could see this working.I could also see SD2-S used to employ a similar plan.L: However, this is not FA. By definition. It is, however, quitepossible as an independent structure, and it could be DP. Structures like this would be the muscles of the body of which FA/DP would be the intelligence.-M: OK.would be made.L: Can the majority decide to spend the money in the central treasury?-M: No, but their wishes would be known to the top ranked specialistsfor the given issue. I predict that a reasonable compromiseL: So the specialists can spend the money, i.e., a majority of them?-M: No, the specialists aren’t counted.The specialist vote is determined by PageRank, meaning that anyonerecieving ANY proxy votes from ANYONE, has more PageRank/specialistvote than they have popular vote.SD2-S has seamless continuity between the reps and voters, and thisis an anti-entrenchment mechanism.L: Look, Mark, I think you are making this up as you are going along. Ican understand that.-M: No. I have done no back-pedalling and my basic concepts are clear.L: To some extent, I’m doing that as well. But I’mnot claiming that “the house of money,” for example, is part of theFA/DP concept. It is one way that it could work out. I think this,just what you have said:I predict that a reasonable compromise would be made.I am not fixing the specific ways in which FA/DP organizationswould function. They will work that out. I’m laying out generalprinciples, and sometimes, because people ask, showing how theseprinciples could possibly be applied.-M: I have general principles – this is SD2.I also have a nailed system, SD2-S.L:[…] Proxies are not elected, they are chosen.Nobody can force you to choose a proxy, a coerced proxy is not aproxy but a recipient of stolen goods. You don’t have to compete withanyone in choosing a proxy. It is utterly different from electedrepresentation.-M: Cool. With SD2-S, an underdog can even recieve bonus votes.-M: Its is my understanding that democracy imposes whether we like itor not.And people’s immediate desires may not be what is best for them in thelong run.L: In other words, yes. “Appease” betrays an attitude, possible. Hecould have written “please.”L: Against the wishes of some of those who contributed it?-M: No system will appease all the people all the time.L: What Mark is describing is standard organizational practice. FAs donot do this in any significant way, and the concept is a proven one.It works. Organizational unity is enhanced, which is the purpose ofavoiding this kind of centralization.-M: You have been describing a parallel system to democracy.By contrast, I have been describing an intended improvement todemocracy.I think the SD2-S is much more interesting than FA/DP, because of itspower.shantiMark, Seattle WA USAL: I’ve been describing one with all these words, for all this time. Itseems Mark hasn’t heard any of it. Maybe someone has, now or in the future.Otherwise, why bother?L: If so, you have created a disincentive for people to join who mightfear that they will be funding something they oppose….Congratulations. Welcome to same old same old.-M: Yes, the same old of centralization via democracy.There are no other options.
+1
New discussion
Answer
Lomax wrote:
Mark wrote:Lomax wrote:[…]L: Mark expects the world to beat a path to his door. He bought thatmousetrap myth. Build a better mousetrap and starve, unless you learnhow to market it or engage someone to market it for you.Mark, we are lemmings! Get it?-M: We are systems designers.
L: Oh, I am what profession I wannabe?-M: Its a hobby for now.
I expect there to be few lemmings among us.
L: We are all lemmings, Mark. That you think you are not — and you dothink you are not — shows that you have bought your own exaltedimage of yourself.
-M: I do have an exalted image of myself. I rock. How am I a lemming?
L: And all of us can break out of leeminghood for times. We can’t do itmore than occasionally without the people in white coats taking usaway. Been there, done that, by the way.
-M: I hope that you were the one with the white coat. I want to be permenently out of lemminghood.
-M: My way, everyone is represented, always.
L: Whether they want to be, or not. You will be represented.This, by the way, is the status quo. Representatives in the U.S.House are apportioned according to population, not according tovotes. The population includes many non-voters, includingnon-citizens, children, etc.
-M: That isn’t necissarily representing me. By contrast, with SD2-S, all voting power(unless looped), becomes a quantified part of the trust network. It doesn’t get thrown out just because its not part of some majority.
If a member is not represented, so?-M: Then they aren’t providing useful proxy information.The voter is the data input for the c-algorithm.
L: Garbage in, garbage out. If the voter is assigned a proxy, thensomething provided by the system that assigns the proxy is addingweight to that proxy without any input from the voter.-M: In that case, its being added by other voters. With your option, where no proxy is provided, its still other voters’ voice being provided instead(that is all that is counted). The only difference is that my approach attempts to smooth the rank distribution curve by giving bonus votes to underdogs. This makes the rank structure less clustered and entrenched.
L: This is not obvious to Mark because he does not respect the voter inthe first place.
-M: You are the one who wants to ignore the voter’s proxy power instead of doing something constructive with it.
L: He’d rather design a system that, instead of amplifying the signal in the voter noise, would substitute another signal provided by the system
-M: No, I am trying to amplify the signal in the voter noise, and my system cannot create substitute signals. It sees only the rank distribution curve, and looks for anomolous gaps to fill. This also makes the ranks more differentiated, and therefore the data more useful.
L: We want the choice of a proxy to be by conscious, voluntary choiceof the voter. The voter is one of the muscles of society. We want himto function by his choice. Not because the system or some systemdesigner says he must.
-M: Yes, with SD2-S the voter is given the choice of real people or defaults. With your preference, the voter is given the choice of one person or being ignored
L: This, among other things, means that it must not be a power structure, it must be about communication, voluntary communication. Adding inputs that don’t come from the citizens just adds, at best, noise, and at worst, it adds bias.
-M: “inputs that don’t come from the citizens” - Again, you are not describing SD2-S.
-M: “Automate member participation” vs. “participation to be a freechoice”. Did it occur to you that the automation of member participation wouldbe free choice participation?
L: No. Because it would not. Automation, perhaps, of the potential forvoter participation, perhaps. In other words, the system could makeit easy. But if it is too easy, one might wonder if it is invitingunconsidered input. It should be easy. But the system should not makeit very easy, as, for example, by presenting the voter with acouple of choices for proxy automatically. It is possible that thereare ways such a process could be done without introducing bias.
-M: Your example here would be ‘too easy’ and would add the bias that
you describe.
SD2-S would not add recommendations unless they are calculated to
unentrench the rank structures.
L: But doing it by PageRank, if I understand this correctly, will merelyamplify the existing bias in the organization, instead of adding thesignal from the voter to that bias.
-M: WTF? All PageRank sees are the voter’s inputs and nothing else. And it is accumulative from proxy-to-proxy to an unlimited depth.
L: There will always be bias, but we want it to be the general bias of the society. Mark might call this “lemmingism,” but that is only a problem when “lemmingism” prevents
the consideration of new ideas.
-M: ‘we want…the general bias of the society’.
Me to. And I want this measured by PageRank.
Gotta better idea?
If you want to measure this general bias,
then you must nail a c-algorithm.
So if the voter gave the free choice not to select proxies, that thecomputer would automaticly select underdogs as proxies.
L: Those are not proxies. Those are appointed voters. They have beengiven added power without the excuse that this power was voluntarily*and knowingly* assigned by the voter.
-M: Simple. Tell the voter:
“If you don’t assign proxies, your proxy endorsement power will go to
filling gaps in the rank distribution curve.”
Now its knowing and voluntary.
L: If the system selects “underdogs,” then it is introducing counter-bias of a kind, a signaldifferent from that which, on average, would be presented by the voter. It is, again, noise.
-M: No, it is a slight instability that can keep the rank structure from becoming too entrenched.
L: There is no “underdog” problem with FA/DP. Underdogs simply organizethemselves and can be as large a force as they can muster. They willbe heard. But the system will not balance out underdoggedness suchthat it becomes equal to topdoggedness.
-M: Nor will SD2-S. I simply want to smooth the curve, not level it.
L: It leaves people as they are, but provides them with means of expression and an assurance that they will be heard. The automatic assignment of proxies does not set up the relationships of trust that we consider essential to the long-term effects of FA/DP. If Mark wants to offer automatic assignment tools to organizations, fine. But I think most of us won’t want that crap.
-M: Your system works as automatic assignment by ignoring the lacking
proxy.
The result is the same as if an automatic assignment is assigned
proportionally to those who did provide proxies. You aren’t making a
comparison.
L: He is designing in bells and whistles that his potential customers — at least thisone!, and I might have some influence — consider more of a problemthan a solution. He is one of that class of abstract designers of castles in the sky,utopian fantasies. And he refuses to connect with the real world.Which is … lemmings. According to him.
-M: Doink! Lomax, calm down. I am only conditioning the data.
L: He hates this. Why? Because they won’t listen to him. If they were lemmings following him, would he mind so much? Perhaps. And perhaps not.
-M: Do you expect people to follow your opinion here?
If so, then following isn’t so bad, is it?
If not, then are you being pointless?
Low-order DP is populistic.High order DP (four or more proxy chains deep) allows for betterfiltration and peer selection.
L: This is an illusory distinction. The only thing that would makeDelegable Proxy “low order” as he defines it is a small size of theorganization. Large-scale DP will be automatically high order. Thatis, the average chain length from individual member to top proxy willbe more than four. We can easily calculate this.
-M: I am not talking about the data itself.
I am talking about how the data is processed,
because this it what will yield a decision.
L:[…] actual direct proxy count of twenty, thenwith N = 4, we’d have 160,000 members. Now, what in the world doesthis have to do with “better filtration and peer selection?”It simply scales the organization.
-M: It matters how this hierarchy is generated.
If it is generated locally at each layer by counting, then this is
populistic.
If it is generated locally and across layers, both top-down, and
bottom-up, then there is more peer-filtering.
L: You can open the doors, but unless people come in, you don’t have aparty. You’ve got some open doors.-M: It could be marketed as being competitive.
L: Marketed by whom? By you?-M: Yes. “Democratic decisionmaking without being burdened by the ignorant. Give SD2-S a try.”
People’s general ranks could be posted.L: Where is one? Show me!-M: I think that I have provided more specifics for SD2-S than you havefor specific DP systems.
L: We have very small systems in place. Because they are FreeAssociations, with specific rules as determined by the members, thespecification is so simple that Mark doesn’t even recognize it as such.(1) Define an organizational purpose.(2) Set up a proxy list. This is just a list, it is not an automated system.(3) Invite members to join and participate.(4) According to standard process (I recommend Robert’s Rules asadapted for on-line meetings), conduct polls. A poll result, again,creates another list. Voter ID, vote.that’s it. The rest is what the members do voluntarily. If they needmore advanced tools, they will find, build, or buy them.-M: OK, but it would help you out if you had a turn-key system.
L: If Mark has tools ready, I’m sure they would be considered. But, I can tell you,if they research his writings and find all this “lemming” nonsense,they will turn away, perhaps needlessly.
-M: ‘…“lemming” nonsense…’
L: Mark has understood a great deal, certainly about DP. He understandssome dimensions of the problem, and this understanding is unusual.But he is also a lemming himself, and his lemmingness keeps him fromseeing beyond certain limitations. He can’t see how an organizationthat is, in itself, powerless, could radically alter the balance of power.
-M: LOMAX! Power does NOT equal powerlessness.
L: He does not see the power of advice and information. Neither of thesehas power in itself.
-M: If it makes change, then it is power, regardless of how its
being done.
An advisory organization can have more power than a command-and-control
hierarchy.
This means that dirt-bags will infiltrate a powerful advisory
organization just like they would a more centralized organization with
the same power.
L: He also does not see the danger of centralization.
-M: I do see the dangers of centralization, this is why I want to do it
better.
By contrast, you don’t see the essential nature of centrality, so again
you aren’t making a comparison. You try to do last minute centrality
as if this will magicly improve things.
L: His opinions about this, about power in general, are actually the “common wisdom.” Hisdislike for direct democracy is a very old idea, including his beliefthat most people are merely sheep. Or lemmings, his preferred term.People are lemmings, yes. It’s a protection and a strength. But itdoes introduce certain problems, and we believe that the kind ofcommunication that FA/DP should foster will solve those problems.
-M: “Communication will solve world problems.” Like it is something new?
Mark behaves as if what isbeing compared is a clearly established system, and what others areproposing are mere theories.-M: Yes, my system is established more clearly than others.
L: No. It is not established at all. It is a design. A design is not"established" until it is in use. One design may be more practical,though less completely specified, than another which has been evencompletely specified.-M: There are degrees of establisment.
L: A completely specified error is, what?
-M: Does this apply? Where is SD2-S in error?
L: Superior to a design approach that is, necessarily, open and therefore not completely specified?
-M: I’d say open and completely specified(SD2 and SD2-S) is superior to not completely specified. When something is nailed, it can be tested and optimized.
L: Dysfunctional, again. I do not recall the specifics Mark istalking about.-M: Then use the search option. I found the input field by searching"input field".
L: Whatever time I’m spending here is essentially stolen time. I’malready spending too much. Do not expect it to continue.-M: I am busy too.
-M: You are assuming that I can’t develop an incorruptable filter.You are being disrespectful and presumptuous.
L: Yes. I am assuming that, because I consider it an *extremely*difficult problem. I don’t think Mark has solved it, at all. But ifhe is correct, surely his system will gain notice from the millionsof people who are searching for one. Or are there millions?Probably not. There may be three or four. I’ve been one of them. Iabandoned the search, because I don’t think it is possible.
-M: Larry Page developed PageRank as a highly incorruptable ranking
algorithm for webpages. And instead of using PageRank for webpages, by
seeing the links, SD2-S uses it for political rank, by seeing the
votes.
Almost all the work has already been done for me by the founders of
Google.
And I have used it on a meatspace human network in Pakistan.
L: […] Mark is assuming that he can develop a centralized but incorruptiblesystem. It has not been done, it has never been proven.
-M: It has already worked for another human network, the WWW. Ever use the Google search engine? Does it give good results?
L: My assumption, that he cannot, is highly likely to be correct. It is notimpossible that he could succeed, but I would not bet the time of day on it.
-M: Lighten up. This will work.
-M: OK – inference, which is uncertain.L: You are assuming that SD2-S is corruptable simply because it iscentralized. Yet you don’t understand it, do you?L: No. I’m basing this in an inference. It could be wrong. Show me.
L: Yes. Now, show me a deductive proof that SD2-S is uncorruptible. Inthe absence of that, induction is all we have.[…]-M: I’ll go with real world data of similar systems.
L: I do have some ideas about what SD2-S is, but I have not seen sufficientdefinition to claim to understand it.-M: Look at the above input field.
L: I did. First thing I see is “manditory representatives.” Mispelled,by the way, Mark should learn to use spellcheck.-M: Spellcheck is not an option in the window that I am using. So you are my spellcheck.
L: What do I do if I am undertain[uncertain?] about joining this organization and I see that?I go somewhere else. I don’t like being subject to mandates, period.
-M: Then I will just call them ‘representitives’ or ‘general trustees’.
The general trustees stay the same, but the specialists change for eachissue.
L: This is utterly impractical. The “lemmings” cannot manage complexissues outside their individual areas of focus, they simply do nothave time. Even to name specialists.
-M: Fine. I only need a small threshold for a decision to be made. This would work.
L: […] We wish to keep the proxy system extremely simple, and this requires single proxy, with default proxies, those active in the absence of the single proxy, coming from proxy assignments of the absent proxy, thus concentrated.
-M: If you have more than one proxy-to-proxy layer, then these default proxies should already be active, regardless of the absence. With SD2-S, these layers are unlimited, and one’s proxy aquired vote is proportional to one’s rank. If a proxy doesn’t vote, no whup, the proxy chains are simply followed to tally up the issue votes of those who have voted.
L: Encouraging the designation of alternate proxies destroys this simplicity.
-M: Alternate proxies:
L:[…] Mark has got a few aspects of this vision, and in particular, much ofthe reasoning behind DP. But he does not know how to get from here tothere, yet he is trying to design a system that will be used when weare “there.”[…]
-M: We have been ‘there’ forever. Communication and polling is nothing
new.
Its time for the next step, SD2-S.
Now imagine the proxy chains to have unlimited depth.
L: We imagine proxy chains to have unlimited depth, it goes withoutsaying in delegable proxy. If proxies are delegable, there is nolimit to the delegation, until it loops back. Theoretically, ifeveryone names a proxy, there is a limit to the chain depth, it isthe human population. But, of course, information would move very,very slowly across that “network.”
-M: So what if it has unlimited depth? How are you going to use this depth without a Markov algorithm? (And there are two networks, the one that is real and the one that is represented. Just knowing that a network has unlimited depth won’t automaticly connect this with application.)
shanti
Mark, Seattle WA USA
-~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups “top-politics” group.
To post to this group, send email to top-politics@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to top-politics-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/top-politics?hl=en
~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+1
New discussion
Answer
At 07:09 PM 11/4/2006, Mark wrote:
You rock.L: We are all lemmings, Mark. That you think you are not — and you dothink you are not — shows that you have bought your own exaltedimage of yourself.-M: I do have an exalted image of myself.I rock. How am I a lemming?
You might be shocked to realize how much of what you have said and written consists of ideas that you have absorbed and repeated without original analysis.
Let’s start with language itself.
You want to be dead. That’s what you’d be.L: And all of us can break out of leeminghood for times. We can’t do itmore than occasionally without the people in white coats taking usaway. Been there, done that, by the way.-M: I hope that you were the one with the white coat.I want to be permenently out of lemminghood.
No, I was not wearing a white coat. Probably jeans.
In which case the proxy is just added power for those other voters. It’s noise, taking one subset of the data that is missing and filling it in from what surrounds it. It makes for a seamless picture, but not for a full picture. It’s pretend data.L: Garbage in, garbage out. If the voter is assigned a proxy, thensomething provided by the system that assigns the proxy is addingweight to that proxy without any input from the voter.-M: In that case, its being added by other voters.
With your option, where no proxy is provided, its still other voters’voice being provided instead(that is all that is counted).
Yes. So what’s the difference? Mark below acknowledges that he distorts the representation:
The only difference is that my approach attempts to smooth the rankdistribution curve by giving bonus votes to underdogs. This makes therank structure less clustered and entrenched.
It makes it less representative.
So SD2-S actually does something with the voter’s proxy power insteadof ignoring it.
It steals the voters proxy power and assigns it to someone.
The voter has power directly in standard DP and may choose to (1) exercise it, (2) delegate it, or (3) abstain.
SD2-S excises the first and last option. It reduces the freedom of the voter. On the argument that the voter is a “lemming.” (Or is probably a “lemming.”)
But true lemmings aren’t going to vote directly, most of the time. Indeed, the hardest thing is going to be to get them to join, unless most of their circle has joined. If they join, they will probably delegate or abstain, most of the time….
L: This is not obvious to Mark because he does not respect the voter inIf I do something constructive with someone else’s voting power, I’ve stolen their vote. Unless, of course, they authorized me to do it. In other words, they named me as their proxy.the first place.-M: You are the one who wants to ignore the voter’s proxy power insteadof doing something constructive with it.
Very much I don’t want to see this done automatically. It defeats the major feature of Delegable Proxy, which is personal relationship and accountability.
Faagh! Enough.
I didn’t go over the rest of the message except for a very cursory glance. I’m sure there is some value in there, Mark is one of the relatively few people who have some understanding of delegable proxy. So if I’ve missed something that others think I should address, by all means, tell me. That is, let the others tell me, not Mark. Though I suppose he could briefly ask for a specific response to a specific question, if he has any.
-~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups “top-politics” group.
To post to this group, send email to top-politics@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to top-politics-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/top-politics?hl=en
~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+1
New discussion
Answer
Lomax wrote:
Mark wrote:L: We are all lemmings, Mark. That you think you are not — and you dothink you are not — shows that you have bought your own exaltedimage of yourself.
-M: I do have an exalted image of myself.I rock. How am I a lemming?
L: You rock. You might be shocked to realize how much of what you have said andwritten consists of ideas that you have absorbed and repeated withoutoriginal analysis. Let’s start with language itself.-M: I think that I have thought deeply about all issues that I have discussed.
L: And all of us can break out of leeminghood for times. We can’t do itmore than occasionally without the people in white coats taking usaway. Been there, done that, by the way.
-M: I hope that you were the one with the white coat.I want to be permenently out of lemminghood.
L: You want to be dead. That’s what you’d be. No, I was not wearing a white coat. Probably jeans.-M: I realize the group think is a very human characteristic, but I don’t always equate this with lemmingism.
L: Garbage in, garbage out. If the voter is assigned a proxy, thensomething provided by the system that assigns the proxy is addingweight to that proxy without any input from the voter.
-M: In that case, its being added by other voters.
L: In which case the proxy is just added power for those other voters.It’s noise, taking one subset of the data that is missing and fillingit in from what surrounds it. It makes for a seamless picture, butnot for a full picture. It’s pretend data.-M:‘…not for a full picture…’ – compared with what? The other option is missing data, which is not full picture either. So I make a seamless picture instead of an incomplete picture.
With your option, where no proxy is provided, its still other voters’voice being provided instead(that is all that is counted).
L: Yes. So what’s the difference? Mark below acknowledges that hedistorts the representation:
-M: Yes, representation is distorted, but:
The only difference is that my approach attempts to smooth the rankdistribution curve by giving bonus votes to underdogs. This makes therank structure less clustered and entrenched.
L: It makes it less representative.
-M: The parallel is administrators and legislators appointing others
below them.
More often than not these appointees do not have the votes of others.
By contrast, the SD2-S underdogs so have significant votes of others,
and the SD2-S system is giving them small and temporary amounts of
bonus points to rise and challange potentially entrenched rank
clusters.
Again, the goal of representation is a small goal,
(but one that SD2-S does better than competing systems)
compared to the primary goal of principled
governance(republicanism).
So SD2-S actually does something with the voter’s proxy power insteadof ignoring it.
L: It steals the voters proxy power and assigns it to someone.
-M: No, it takes freely given proxy power and makes constructive use of it.
L: The voter has power directly in standard DP and may choose to
(1) exercise it,…
-M: SD2-S does have this DD priciple, but it is for:
L: (2) delegate it…
-M: With SD2-S, delegation is manditory - the idea being that government is always done by others, therefore a voting system should be RD to reflect this fact. And proxy power that isn’t used isn’t merely ignored, but is reused to condition the voting data.
L: …or (3) abstain. SD2-S excises the first and last option.
-M: SD2-S uses all these options, but tries to use abstained data instead of ignoring it.
L: It reduces the freedom of the voter.
-M: No, with SD2-S, the voter has the utmost freedom. He/she is given close to 20 vote option combinations.
L: On the argument that the voter is a “lemming.” (Or is probably a “lemming.”)
-M: The lemming argument is only to justify RD, not specificly SD2-S or its features.
L: But true lemmings aren’t going to vote directly, most of the time.Indeed, the hardest thing is going to be to get them to join, unlessmost of their circle has joined. If they join, they will probablydelegate or abstain, most of the time….
-M: Any combination of lemmings and non-lemmings will render a:
SD2-S will see this, and the decision will be made by the specialist vote(default 60%) as allowed by a threshold of a popular vote (default 40%).
L: This is not obvious to Mark because he does not respect the voter inthe first place.
-M: You are the one who wants to ignore the voter’s proxy power insteadof doing something constructive with it.
L: If I do something constructive with someone else’s voting power, I’vestolen their vote. Unless, of course, they authorized me to do it. Inother words, they named me as their proxy.-M: If they are using the voting system, they have authorized the voting system to do something with their missing proxy data.
L: Very much I don’t want to see this done automatically. It defeats themajor feature of Delegable Proxy, which is personal relationship andaccountability.
-M: Again, Lomax, your ignoring of the missing proxy data still does something automaticly with it by having the effect of redistributing to those who have voted for proxies. By contrast, I do something more useful with it by challenging rank clusters.
L: […] I’m sure there is some value in there, Mark is one of therelatively few people who have some understanding of delegable proxy.So if I’ve missed something that others think I should address, byall means, tell me. That is, let the others tell me, not Mark. ThoughI suppose he could briefly ask for a specific response to a specificquestion, if he has any.
-M: How about just conceding to my points?
shanti
Mark, Seattle WA USA
-~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups “top-politics” group.
To post to this group, send email to top-politics@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to top-politics-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/top-politics?hl=en
~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+1
New discussion
Answer